4 ms·

Hey, what do you know, it has been covered by "US Media": https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2

by Ardren 5y ago

Hey, what do you know, it has been covered by "US Media": https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-extradition-appeal/2021/07/07/41bc3914-df2e-11eb-a27f-8b294930e95b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/julian-assange-e... > In the indictment, Thordarson’s claims are used not as the basis for charges but as background for what Assange told Chelsea Manning, who as an Army soldier exposed classified information through WikiLeaks in 2010. > Thordarson in the article also does not deny involvement in the hacking of U.S. targets, and tells the publication his activities were “something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him.”

boomboomsubban 5y ago
One article that completely ignores that the DoJ offered Thordarson immunity for this false testimony and that the judge mentions the Icelandic stuff as part of the reason the extradition was valid. It is also used as further evidence of the only charge that isn't an Espionage Act charge, which is the reason people try to claim these charges aren't clear violations of a free press. And here's the full quote that the article took one line from >Stundin cannot find any evidence that Thordarson was ever instructed to make those requests by anyone inside WikiLeaks. Thordarson himself is not even claiming that, although he explains this as something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him. How this supposed non-verbal communication took place he cannot explain. edit oh, and the Washington Post article is from July 8th. The original article claims the media ignored the report as of July 2nd.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
k1m 5y ago
Your linked Washington Post article was published on 8th July. It's actually a good demonstration of the animosity towards Assange in the corporate press. It wasn't published in response to the major Sundin story (26th June) which as the OP's article (published 7 July, before your Post piece) shows, was blanked by all corporate press at the time: > ...as of Friday, July 2, there has been literally zero coverage of it in corporate media; not one word in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, Fox News or NPR. A search online for either “Assange” or “Thordarson” will elicit zero relevant articles from establishment sources, either US or elsewhere in the Anglosphere, even in tech-focused platforms like the Verge, Wired or Gizmodo,” FAIR says. The Post mainly sides with the US and only mentions the Sundin reporting in passing, diminishing its importance and omitting important parts, as the other replies here point out. A great example of power-friendly reporting when it comes to Assange.
- addicted 5y ago
  Rightly or wrongly, Assange has largely been a non entity in the US media for a long time. This was pretty much after Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the NYTimes spent a huge amount of resources for over a year, to properly redact the Cablegate leaks and release them, only to find that Assange was unhappy with how slowly this was going and he released them all himself, with basic redactions. Ever since then regular media has been unwilling to work with him, because they’ve rightly judged him to be unreliable and have barely covered his personal issues from anymore than an arm’s length (the Guardian has been the most active in covering him from what I can tell, but US media has shunned him since then).
  - ricardobeat 5y ago
    Are you saying that the media is more concerned with the status of a personal relationship, than reporting on the most important leak of the decade and getting to the truth?
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    > Rightly or wrongly, Assange has largely been a non entity in the US media for a long time. Let me help: wrongly so. That's the point and the disgrace. > Ever since then regular media has been unwilling to work with him, because they’ve rightly judged him to be unreliable I can think of so much worse adjectives for journalists who think this serves as an excuse to ignore something like this. If someone shows up drunk at the police station and says "hey you assholes, person X murdered someone, do your job already and don't just eat donuts" that may not be super polite, but it's not an excuse to not investigate.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    > only to find that Assange was unhappy with how slowly this was going and he released them all himself, with basic redactions. That's not what happened. The Guardian, through its own incompetence, made the full unredacted cables publicly available in February 2011, by publishing the decryption key. People online realized that the cables were available, and a German magazine published an article explaining that the cables were now available. Only after that happened did WikiLeaks put the unredacted cables on its website, under the rationale that since the cables were already public, they might as well be hosted on WikiLeaks. The Guardian has consistently obfuscated this issue, and tried to blame Assange for the Guardian's decision to publish the decryption key. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was only temporary, whatever that's supposed to mean.
busymom0 5y ago
That WaPo article was put out after a ton of criticism that the US media was refusing to report on it. The original news about the key witness admitting to lying and fabricating was released on 26. júní 2021: https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ WaPo finally put out that article on July 8, 2021 after criticism of western media. These search still get zero hits for anything related to this news: site:cnn.com assange witness lie site:nbcnews.com assange witness lie site:nytimes.com assange witness lie site:apnews.com assange witness lie site:msnbc.com assange witness lie

by Ardren 5y ago

boomboomsubban 5y ago

One article that completely ignores that the DoJ offered Thordarson immunity for this false testimony and that the judge mentions the Icelandic stuff as part of the reason the extradition was valid. It is also used as further evidence of the only charge that isn't an Espionage Act charge, which is the reason people try to claim these charges aren't clear violations of a free press. And here's the full quote that the article took one line from >Stundin cannot find any evidence that Thordarson was ever instructed to make those requests by anyone inside WikiLeaks. Thordarson himself is not even claiming that, although he explains this as something Assange was aware of or that he had interpreted it so that this was expected of him. How this supposed non-verbal communication took place he cannot explain. edit oh, and the Washington Post article is from July 8th. The original article claims the media ignored the report as of July 2nd.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

k1m 5y ago

Your linked Washington Post article was published on 8th July. It's actually a good demonstration of the animosity towards Assange in the corporate press. It wasn't published in response to the major Sundin story (26th June) which as the OP's article (published 7 July, before your Post piece) shows, was blanked by all corporate press at the time: > ...as of Friday, July 2, there has been literally zero coverage of it in corporate media; not one word in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, Fox News or NPR. A search online for either “Assange” or “Thordarson” will elicit zero relevant articles from establishment sources, either US or elsewhere in the Anglosphere, even in tech-focused platforms like the Verge, Wired or Gizmodo,” FAIR says. The Post mainly sides with the US and only mentions the Sundin reporting in passing, diminishing its importance and omitting important parts, as the other replies here point out. A great example of power-friendly reporting when it comes to Assange.

addicted 5y ago
Rightly or wrongly, Assange has largely been a non entity in the US media for a long time. This was pretty much after Der Spiegel, the Guardian, and the NYTimes spent a huge amount of resources for over a year, to properly redact the Cablegate leaks and release them, only to find that Assange was unhappy with how slowly this was going and he released them all himself, with basic redactions. Ever since then regular media has been unwilling to work with him, because they’ve rightly judged him to be unreliable and have barely covered his personal issues from anymore than an arm’s length (the Guardian has been the most active in covering him from what I can tell, but US media has shunned him since then).
- ricardobeat 5y ago
  Are you saying that the media is more concerned with the status of a personal relationship, than reporting on the most important leak of the decade and getting to the truth?
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  > Rightly or wrongly, Assange has largely been a non entity in the US media for a long time. Let me help: wrongly so. That's the point and the disgrace. > Ever since then regular media has been unwilling to work with him, because they’ve rightly judged him to be unreliable I can think of so much worse adjectives for journalists who think this serves as an excuse to ignore something like this. If someone shows up drunk at the police station and says "hey you assholes, person X murdered someone, do your job already and don't just eat donuts" that may not be super polite, but it's not an excuse to not investigate.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  > only to find that Assange was unhappy with how slowly this was going and he released them all himself, with basic redactions. That's not what happened. The Guardian, through its own incompetence, made the full unredacted cables publicly available in February 2011, by publishing the decryption key. People online realized that the cables were available, and a German magazine published an article explaining that the cables were now available. Only after that happened did WikiLeaks put the unredacted cables on its website, under the rationale that since the cables were already public, they might as well be hosted on WikiLeaks. The Guardian has consistently obfuscated this issue, and tried to blame Assange for the Guardian's decision to publish the decryption key. The Guardian's excuse is that they thought the decryption key was only temporary, whatever that's supposed to mean.

busymom0 5y ago

That WaPo article was put out after a ton of criticism that the US media was refusing to report on it. The original news about the key witness admitting to lying and fabricating was released on 26. júní 2021: https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ WaPo finally put out that article on July 8, 2021 after criticism of western media. These search still get zero hits for anything related to this news: site:cnn.com assange witness lie site:nbcnews.com assange witness lie site:nytimes.com assange witness lie site:apnews.com assange witness lie site:msnbc.com assange witness lie